PRINT
EMAIL
DISCUSSPutting Women in Their Place
03/23/2008By John Bloom
Sheri Klouda’s lawsuit against Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth was dismissed by a federal judge on Friday, and the news coverage made it sound like she was a disgruntled ex-employee filing a nuisance suit. The facts are a little bit more inconvenient for the seminary and for Dr. Paige Patterson, the president, and they’ve been extensively parsed on the blogosphere over the past year so that there’s little doubt about what happened:
In 2002 Dr. Klouda, a graduate of Criswell Bible College in Dallas, was hired to teach Hebrew in the Department of Theology. She was told this was a tenure-track position.
In 2003 Dr. Patterson became president. She went to him to ask him whether she should be worried about his well known opposition to women in the ministry. He said she had “nothing to worry about.” She pointed out that she had freely signed all Baptist faith statements, including the parts about women, and that she didn’t regard this teaching position as a pastorate—did he? He said no, he did not.
In 2005 it was time for her to be considered for tenure. The administration wouldn’t allow any tenure review to take place.
In 2006 her teaching contract was not renewed. The reason given was that they interpreted a verse in 1 Timothy to mean that no woman can be in any position of authority over a man, and therefore there’s no way for a woman to teach in the Department of Theology because almost all of the students are male.
In 2007 she suffered a series of financial setbacks related to her having to move herself, her invalid husband and their three children to a small college in Indiana while being unable to sell their house in Fort Worth.
She reluctantly filed the lawsuit, and only at the urging of many Baptist pastors. She was not surprised when it was thrown out by the judge, who cited the university’s right to use Biblical reasons to hire and fire faculty.
This still doesn’t answer the moral questions:
- Why did they hire her if she was precluded from working there by a scripture that had existed for 1,850 years prior to her hiring?
- Why did they tell her it was tenure track if it wasn’t?
- Did they lie when they said she was not fired, simply “denied tenure”? You can’t really be denied tenure if there’s no tenure review in the first place. I mean, if you’re gonna fire her because of 1 Timothy, then fire her because of 1 Timothy, don’t make up some b.s. reason later.
Normally our policy here at The Door is to avoid quoting scripture, because the practice is so subject to abuse, especially when the purpose of the quotation is to justify some opinion. But since Paige Patterson is currently the highest-ranking Southern Baptist scholar in the world, this situation calls for some Talmudic dispute, don’t you think?
Paige Patterson once gave me a Bible, by the way, and he wrote on the flyleaf, “Lean not on your own arm of understanding.” Let that be our motto as I say this to Dr. Patterson, brother in the faith:
1 Timothy 2:12 says that a woman should not “usurp authority over a man.” This is the scripture you’ve used to deny this woman a place in the lecture halls of the seminary. But let’s go to the complete passage:
“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve.”
This is not the voice of God, as in Leviticus. This is the voice of a man called “Paul” by the writer, but we don’t really know who it is. Scholars are 100 percent agreed—even the male scholars—that it’s not Paul who wrote this, because the letter has been dated no earlier than the year 120. Therefore, even though it’s written to Timothy, it can’t be the same Timothy who traveled with Paul, for he, too, is dead by 120. In the first collection of Paul’s letters, in the year 200, these so-called “pastoral epistles” (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus) are nowhere to be found, and their relevance, not to mention their authenticity, is still being debated throughout the 3rd century. Thirty-six percent of the words in them appear nowhere else in the letters of Paul, and more than half of those words appear nowhere else in the New Testament. (For example, this is the only place you find eusebeia, the Greek and Roman word for “proper religious behavior” toward the gods, instead of what Paul would have undoubtedly used—faith.) So this letter is obviously written for a particular purpose, and it’s intended to preclude women from teaching the Bible in a particular situation, and later on—at least two centuries later—it’s finally approved by the church fathers as scripture.
And as to usurping authority over the man: A teacher is a servant, Paige. She puts herself at the service of all those theology students. You would see this better if you would observe a first-grade class, but I can assure you the principle is the same at the graduate level. Sheri Klouda was usurping no authority by her tutelage.
Bottom line: In order to read this passage as “All women are to keep their mouths shut at all times,” you’ve got to believe that Paul believed that.
So let’s look at what he said. My turn to pick a scripture. One that we are certain was written by Paul:
“For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then ye are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:27-29)
I don’t think I have to parse that passage. I think, in fact, that your eyes will just sort of naturally zero in on the part of it that’s pertinent to this situation. But since you’re not just a servant of the word but a student of it, we should go further.
We should ask the question: Why would the church put the name of Paul on the Pastoral Epistles? Why would they be addressed to Titus and Timothy, two deceased people who were known to be beloved associates of Paul during his lifetime? The answer seems obvious, but I’ll go ahead and say it: Because, at a certain point, two or three generations after Paul was dead, people were using the words of Paul to justify wildness, possibly even heresy.
The Pastoral Epistles were attributed to Paul so that the church could enforce discipline. Even though they’re supposedly personal letters, they read like a rule book. I don’t mean to say that they’re inauthentic, because they were eventually included in the canon, but they were not part of the early zeal of the church, and they were certainly not written by any contemporary of Jesus. They were put together in response to various out-of-control situations, some of them apparently engineered by women. This was housekeeping.
Now let’s look at my book, Galatians. When you read one of the authentic letters of Paul, what do you feel? You feel many things, but you never feel under the law. What I feel is a breaking and a “breaking loose,” a movement inward and outward at the same time. I feel the power of the verse that you penciled into my Bible, the breaking away of my stubborn arm of understanding. And one constant through these amazing passages is the presence of women. It’s a woman who greets Paul at his first church. It’s women who maintain the churches he leaves behind. It’s a woman who carries the “letter to the Romans” ... to the Romans. And in that letter to the Romans, I think you’ll also agree, Paul declares his personal hatred of rule books.
Before you answer, Paige, lean not on your own arm of understanding.
I must admit, this "100%" statement got my attention as well. I ain't buying it.
To SRebbe (and several other's points) regarding statistics, I love Mark Twain's line: "There are 3 types of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Then there's the old line about "statistics lie, and liars use statistics."
Exactly why '47%' of statistics are made up. Put whatever number you want in. Thank you for standing by my point, TGD.
Oh, I'm not standing by your point. It has been proven irrefutably that only 37.687937% of statistics are made up. Of course, that figure was amended after the Kyoto conference confirmed that global warming has contributed only 16.179846% to the decline of Bear Stearns shareholder value, as opposed to the 23.653791% attributed to it earlier. Also, it's worth noting that while my figures are rounded to the nearest millionth of one percent for ease of calculation, most mathematicians (97.896378452789% to be exact) agree that the rounding is close enough for horseshoes and hand grenades.
tthhpppttt
I have no idea what that means...are you dyslexic?
Well, well, so you put the bait out there and like a true sucker I took it. As you probably can imagine I am somewhat incensed at the author when he states “Scholars are 100 percent agreed—even the male scholars—that it’s not Paul who wrote this, because the letter has been dated no earlier than the year 120.” Who the heck is this guy to say this?! The biblical scholarship of the latter half of the 20th century actually dispelled much of the later date theories on the NT autographs that emerged from the European, liberal theology of 19th and early 20th centuries. To say concerning manuscript/literary criticism that there is a 100% agreement among scholars on just about anything is RIDICULOUS and borders on insane. (This is especially true on dating issues.) So, even before the guy starts his argument he is, in my book, totally discredited. (Not to mention his dubious claim that this, and several other pastoral epistles, were not accepted as authentic, until the later Church Fathers.)
To tell you the truth I have yet to read any exegetical review of 1 Tim 2:12, 13 that convinces me that it is okay for women to teach and exercise authority over men – in the church. I emphasize here that I am referring to an exegetical approach. I think it is easy to say that the cultural context is key to Paul’s exhortation to the Corinthians about women (silence, long hair) as well as Peter’s exhortation concerning braided hair, jewelry etc. But this one passage in 1 Tim, exegetically, is a stickler, because Paul clearly puts it into a biblical context (rather than a purely cultural one) by his admonition in vs. 13, 14 – that it was the woman who was deceived and not the man. Thus, the witness for his exhortation about women teaching and exercising authority over men, is the book of Genesis and not something like, “doesn’t even nature tell you that long hair on a man is a disgrace to him.” (1 Cor 11:14)
Also, the author does the intellectually dishonest act of constructing a “straw man” argument. He states that those who believe 1 Tim 2:12 is literal and authentic hold the opinion, “All women are to keep their mouths shut at all times.” Nowhere does the passage state that and I have never heard anyone who believes as J Rodman Williams did ever even approach this passage with this type of spirit. Now, I would say that if the author had stated that this was the attitude of Dr. Patterson, I would not argue against that. The seminary’s president’s actions were despicable and I believe dishonest, small-minded and uncharitable. But this doesn’t really address the issue of 1 Tim 2:12; it merely seeks to put the author’s opponents on the defensive, trying to prove a negative – that I don’t think like that. It’s a ruse, a dodge and it is also dishonest.
I also get a little pissed off when I read the way people use Galatians 3:27-29 as a proof text to show that there is no difference in the roles of men and women. The passage has absolutely nothing to do with this argument. It is speaking of our covenant standing and privileges before the Lord. It is addressing the fact that in Jesus we are all first-born sons in the covenant and that there is no class or classification of people as regards our standing and inheritance. To take this to mean that there are no longer distinctions between these categories is ridiculous. Paul himself never treats all people as if there are no distinctions – and neither do we as missionaries. There are distinctions that will remain with us forever; they are not erased in eternity, rather they come into their full purpose and glory and will no longer be a hindrance or reason for prejudice. We see in Revelation that there are individuals in heaven who still have the distinctives of ethne, tribe, people and language. Also, Paul related to Jews according to Jews, to women as if they were women, Gentiles as if they were Gentiles. The non-distinction of the Galatians’ passage has to do with value, covenant standing, etc., not with roles in life. (Anyway, I don’t have time to write more about this part of it).
Finally, the author condemns Patterson for leaning on his (?) “own arm of understanding” and then follows this with an absurd, final argument, “When you read one of the authentic letters of Paul, what do you feel? You feel many things, but you never feel under the law. What I feel is a breaking and a “breaking loose,” a movement inward and outward at the same time. I feel the power of the verse that you penciled into my Bible…” He states that the Galatians letter makes him feel this way, but the Timothy epistle does the opposite for him. He ultimately calls on the reader to finally turn to his/her own feelings about what they read. I found this pretty bizarre because anyone can feel just about anything one wants to. I bet the president of the seminary read 1 Tim 2:12 and really felt he was following God and was upholding his word.
In the end, what this author does is call us to take him at his word that the letter is not authentic and therefore irrelevant. He does so on dubious and outdated scholarship and then, ultimately, he calls us to ask ourselves how we feel about what we are reading, and to make that the final authority of our decision making process. Incredible!
Now, as to the contemporary application of this passage, what can one say? I will say, first that I think it is dishonest to try and bind this passage to culture; i.e. Hagin’s elaborate story of how Paul was battling an Ephesian temple culture or a situation where women were arguing in the meetings. It’s possible, of course, but for exegetical purposes is not provable. I think we have to take it at its face value, that Paul did not permit women to teach men or exercise authority over them. Nor do I concur that the passage is only speaking of not permitting women doing this with their husbands. (The Greek word here for man, andros, is commonly used for husband but very few scholars ever argue this angle. For one thing, the word is used elsewhere without any reference to husbands.)
I think we have to honestly approach this scripture and say that Paul did not allow women to teach men or to exercise authority over them, and that he based this practice on the biblical history that man was first and that it was the woman who was first beguiled, deceived and thus became a transgressor. His appeal here is not to culture or necessarily to personal preference, but rather to the history of the fall as recorded in Genesis. So, let’s not change the plain meaning of the text.
I believe the only honest way to say that this passage is not forbidding women to be pastors or teachers is to focus on two words and the way they are parsed: ἐπιτρέπω, & αὐθεντεῖν . The first word is interesting in that it is not in the passive voice (it is not permitted) nor in the third person (he does not permit, they do not permit, etc.). Rather, it is in the first person singular, present and active – in other words I do not permit. I believe one can argue clearly that this was something that Paul did not allow in the church, but it does not by necessity follow that it was a universal, God dictated precept for all churches, for all times. To argue this is, I think, at least reasonable though not necessarily so absolute that you can finish all debate with it. Also, consider the good ol’ difference between prescription and description. Paul is definitely prescribing here and not merely describing. Having said that, however, he might be putting limits on it by using the present, active, first person for the verb, thus limiting it to a description of his prescription (man, should I have been a lawyer or what?).
The second word, from which we get, authentic is in the infinitive – which is a grammatical necessity rather than anything that adds to any significance to meaning. The word authentein does mean to exercise authority over, control and from a Greek dictionary also means one who acts on his own authority, autocratic. 3 an absolute master. 4 to govern, exercise dominion over one. Taken from this I think we can see that there was a certain attitude and practice that Paul was against; that of women taking control and dominion over men and exercising that authority. It comes almost with a sense of one acting against the willingness of those over whom one is exercising authority. So, people have argued that Paul is talking about the way in which a woman exercises authority. This, however, is much more of a stretch on credulity when it comes to exegesis. The first argument (Paul permitting) is a better take on it.
Of course, you cannot get 100% of people of any sort to agree on anything. That said, you also cannot be 100% right about things, and failing to back up your numerous assertions really helps the rest of us see that, too.
Why can we not all agree that if you give your word to someone else, you have some responsibility to live up to it? You can proof-text all you want, but at the end of the day, the folks at SWBTS failed to deal honestly and faithfully with someone, and I just don't see the Bible giving out free passes on that particular lapse, no matter how they want to spin it.
Dros, of course I can be "100% right about things" and I can get 100% of sane people to agree with me. 2+2=4; humans require water to live; you get my point. There is such a thing as truth. Jesus said he was "the truth", not "a truth" or "a way" (this doesn't change your subsequent observation about the shabby way this lady was reportedly treated; if true, that sucks). I only made the prior comment about truth because I think it's important we acknowledge that truth does, in fact, exist; and at least on some very fundamental theological issues, we can know it, and it's important! Perhaps we can't "know" it in such a way as to satisfy a pure science mindset, but we can know it in a way that truly matters to us and to those around us.
When Christianity came between me and God, I chose God.
After reading the post by Anonymous 11:36 am, I am sure I made the right choice.
God is Love.....religion is not.
Amen, Deist. The more people like the good Dr Paige "Fubar" Patterson are using the word "chistian" to describe themselves, the less comfortable I am using it. I generally don't anymore. Kinda sad in one way and liberating in another.
Perhaps a more helpful Wiki for "Anonymous 11:36" would be, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire
from wiki I learned that elephants are not longer endangered!
Yes, and they are great fried with a little olive oil and garlic.
PD, I read most of anon's comment (admittedly, not every word, as it was long...) and I'm not quite sure what he/she said that is so offensive. As I read it, anon was simply disagreeing with a major point of the article and giving his (somewhat impassioned) reasons for the dissent. Of course, you're free to disagree with it, but I didn't see it as particularly incendiary. Just wondering.
I returned to anon's post several times. I spent a total of probably two hours reading and studying it before I made my post above.
I was not offended, I was reminded how a man made religion requires complicated and pedantic discourse.
Loving God is simple. Loving religion is harmful.
Treebeard (the Ent) to Merry and Pippin:
"It takes a long time to say anything in Entish, and we Ents don't say anything unless it's worth taking a long time to say."
I must confess. While reading the long post by anon, I did think of C. S. Lewis.
Do you think Treebeard is based on Lewis?
Take your time.....don't be hasty.
Lewis was a good buddy of Tolkien, so who knows. But I'm the wrong one to ask-I think Lewis was incredible (and Tolkien for that matter).
"Religion is the enemy of God."
that bumper sticker is almost as sound as god is love the devil is hate
Just 'cause it's simple doesn't make it wrong.
Or 'God Good Devil Bad' by Degarmo and Key
omg, I thought of that too! One of the more embarrassing albums from a once good band. The day that came out was the day I stopped listening to "christian music" and started listening to "Music" with no reference to label.
Don't wanna but I suppose in order not to be a hypocrite: just 'cause it's simple, doesn't mean it's not true.
It's inane arguments like this, which have no relevance to real people living real lives in the real world, that have pushed me away from fundamentalist Christianity. Let's start following the example of Jesus and start deferring to women, then maybe this world wouldn't be in such a mess.
Just to make sure everyone will know I answer this . . .
I should have used the term used by Howard Clark Kee, that scholarship is "nearly unanimous" in rejecting the attribution to Paul. I'm not challenging the fact that the letters are canonical, I'm just saying that they're not Paul's. To quote Kee in his summary of current scholarship in The Cambridge Companion to the Bible, "Someone who tried to pass off such works today would be called a forger, but antiquity provides many examples of intellectual enthusiasts who wrote in a great master's name." The most extensive dating of the various letters has been carried out by the Institute for the Study of Antiquity and Christian Origins at the University of Texas. The director of that Institute, L. Michael White, is equally certain from the scientific evidence when he writes: "Some have argued that [the Pastoral Epistles] were written by a member of Paul's circle and close to Paul's own time, but the weight of evidence from their language and glimpses of their internal situation points to a much later date, perhaps in the 120s to 140s. A date as late as the 170s has been proposed, but it is not widely accepted."
John Bloom
In my mind, this comes down to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Would Paige want to be offered a job under false pretenses? I don't think so. Would his anger be justified when what he was assured of was denied? Yes.
Christians among all people should follow the golden rule - when we don't do even that, why should anyone listen to us?
This is the same denomination that broke away over the issue of slavery. They liked the idea. So does this REALLY surprise us? Should this have REALLY surprised her?
This matter is clearly about integrity and has nothing to do with interpretation of scripture although that is a far more interesting subject. This woman was hired under false pretenses and if the administration subsequently changed its attitude regarding women as profs, it had a Christian obligation to make sure that she did not suffer financially for it by providing a hefty severance package -- especially hefty because, as "Christians" they should be even more deeply concerned for someone who is responsible for three children and an invalid husband. No doubt these same people would claim to be extremely pro-family.
Paul's focus is more one spiritual gifts than gender. There are many men who think they have the gift of preaching and shepherding, this has done more harm than the threat of women in ministry concern. Gifts not gender should be our cry.
Ok,
first I agree with you in general. what happened to Dr. Klouda was completely wrong--and the reasons are woefully inadequate, scripturally.
but please, don't quote Galatians here. Galatians is referring to salvation--not whether women can serve as elders, deacons, preachers, whatever. as jiminy crickett says: "always let your context be your guide" (or something like that).
as to timothy--i really prefer n.t. wright's explanation: context. the primary religious group in ephesus was the diana cult which was run by...guess who?...WOMEN! (sorry about the all caps). the writer--hey, I'll say Paul--tells these women who are used to taking control of everything they shouldn't grab authority and start bossing folks around. they were used to this kind of behavior while worshipping diana--it was OK to diana worshippers.
frankly, i think he would have told the men the same thing if the zeus cult was all the rage in ephesus and men were abusing women and stomping all over them! it wasn't that women shouldn't teach men--it was they shouldn't storm in and start wresting control: power games.
again, on the most part i agree with you. i'm not a baptist, so it ain't my fight. but i remember being outraged when this all came to press.
There really are intelligent people in the Southern Baptist Convention who find Paige Patterson's actions disgusting. Once again it's the age-old question of why do the biggest moron's get the place of leadership?
I don't think we as members, study the issues and elect a messenger that is prepared to represent our local Church. I think we are lazy.
Anyone who works with Paige should be reading this book.
If the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God, then why didn't God use better editors?
Hank Hill:
"Why dontcha just go on down to hell and live with the devil?"
This is the voice of a man called “Paul” by the writer, but we don’t really know who it is. Scholars are 100 percent agreed—even the male scholars—that it’s not Paul who wrote this, because the letter has been dated no earlier than the year 120.
---------------------
No need to comment on this errneous dribble.
Pete
Well said Pete - though you spelled "errneous" wrong, probably might be enough mental stimulation to get these people thinking for themselves and see how fallacious this article is.
What a waste of good Internet traffic!
If a Woman cannot teach in the church, then why did God select Anna the Prophetess as the first who "spoke of Him to all those who looked for redemption in Jerusalem" IN THE TEMPLE? Do you think that she only spoke of JESUS only to women and children when the text clearly states that she spoke to "ALL THOSE who looked for redemption." Move over men. Read Luke 2:36-38, not as a man in a rush, but as a woman, nice an slowly, word by word, and drink it all it.
Anna the Prophetess was the first to preach JESUS to all of Jerusalem. You can't get around a clear passage and there is no getting around the fact that she preached this to men and did so in the temple. By the way, lest you think that some woman came up with this, read the esteemed Dr. Herbert Lockyer, All The Women of the Bible (1967), who opens up Anna's ministry beautifully, yet he was from Moody, a tad bit more strict than SBC. True to the Word; that is all he was.
"I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many people, including me. Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus. They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them. Greet also the church that meets at their house."
(Romans 16:1-5)
-------------
Addressed to "Anna the Prophetess" poster:
You are correct in at least your support for women teaching.
The same Paul who said (contra to the writers of the article here) "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." (1 Timothy 2:12) asks the church at Rome to receive WOMEN "in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you". Paul considered WOMEN his "fellow workers". In what way were they "working with" Paul in his ministry?
Instead of building a premise on fallacious reasoning to suit an agenda (like the author of this article on this website), one only needs to examine the "local context" of the chapter - answer: conduct "in the church". The passages of Paul that some find offensive involve an issue of authority under the Church only, not status, not capability, or not nature.
But, to those who are FULLY egalitarian in their belief, I ask you - please find evidence in the New Testament showing a woman having a position of authority within the Church equal to that of a man, starting with the position of deacon (diakonos, include "elder" -presbuteros - if you wish).
Continuing (to the egalitarian only), please find evidence of a woman standing in a position within the Church equal to that of a man according to historical tradition before 325 A.D.
It stands to reason that women can teach and serve alongside men. But to say that women are permitted to be in the same offices of authority within the Church as men is something not substantiated either by Scripture or through the early Church historical record.
To at least build a plausable argument of equal access, one needs to take a Marcionic approach to the New Testament, and rip out the passages from God's Word that do not chime with one's presuppositions. That is exactly what this article on this website is attempting to do.
Pete
I am shocked! I did not know that there were New Testaments in the lifetime of Marcion.
I have been dupped into believing that he collected all of the writings that he found were true to Jesus and Paul, prior to the Second Jewish revolt (Bar Kochba).
So, am I mistaken in thinking that Marcion assembled the first cannon of Christian scripture?
And, am I mistaken in thinking that Tertullian arrived at this point decades later, armed with mis-information?
I think it is a mistake to approach Pauline Theology without the input of Marcion.
While the complete Canon was recorded in the 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius (367 AD), authoritative documents that were codified in the Canon were already being circulated "as authoritative" and/or "scripture" among all the Christian churches at and before 200 A.D. The writings of Paul are but one clear example.
The Apostle Peter for example:
2 Peter 3:16 "He (Paul) writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures"
Already, before 100 A.D., Paul's writings were being considered "as Scripture" (ie. "other scripture" 3:16 above). Furthermore, with Marcion's actions of distorting Paul's writings (Galatians and Romans specifically) only served to prove how esteemed Paul's writings were - (negative proof: divergence from the norm presupposes a norm).
As for Marcion, he was rejected by the Roman church community in 114 AD. He was loosely gnostic in his theology. So negative was his influence on the early Church, Polycarp (~70 to 155 AD) once said to Marcion in a reply - "Dost thou know me?" "I do know thee, the first-born of Satan." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies) ..
Marcion has no authority. Consideration of him "is a mistake."
Pete
The earliest dates for the books of 2Peter and its twin Jude are about the time of the 2nd Revolt (@130). If you accept them as authoritative then you must also accept the Apocalypse of Peter and 1st and 2nd Clement. And you must find some status for the Shepherd of Hermas.
Marcion did not include these in his ‘Cannon’. They were living in his generation and he knew that they were not Apostles.
Polycarp is surrounded by legend, some of which credits Polycarp with authorship of the Pastorals. Neither you, nor I will ever know him. Irenaeus tried his best to show an unbroken line from the actual Apostles to Polycarp. In his efforts he chose to belittle Marcion, to stretch his points.
And, by the way, Irenaeus does not quote from the Pastoral letters until CE180.
Marcion is a great foundation from which to build history. He is the best witness we have. Many others are built on legend.
To dismiss him, is to make presumptions, such as Tertullian.
I see you are utterly ignorant of the criteria for canonicity of Scripture. You are also a pseudo-historian.
Ron, are you foaming at the mouth?
Why aren't all the students who were taught by her required to go back and re-take the classes and be taught by a man? If the Bible says that women are not to teach men, then weren't these men falsely taught? I think there should be a recall on Baptist ministers who took any of her classes, perhaps they should even be disqualified from ministry for having allowed themselves to be taught by a woman. I think it would be a wonderful example to have all these churches without ministers and their families without support while they all travel back to retake these classes. If she's not worthy to teach now, she sure wasn't worthy to teach then, was she? Maybe some of them will have financial problems due to the disruption in their lives, but that is of small consequence compared to the danger of having woman-taught Baptist ministers on the loose. Recall, recall, recall!!!!
Dang, SST! I HATE it when someone makes a really great point and it wasn't me. It's a good thing my man-pride can see me through this momentary crisis.
Saint Pete might just surpise these Southern Baptist, Bible Thumpin', anti-woman, big-American-Car-Drvin', NASCAR-lovin', good ol'boys when the time comes for them to "come home". They'll be standing there, getting impatient, smoking a big ol'cigar. Pete will pick up the phone, call the inner office to announce their arrival. Then, turning to them, he'll say, Mr. Patterson? Mr. Copeland? Mr. Hinn? God said SHE'll be out in a minute, she's just fixing her afro.
I'm not sure, but I think True Scholar got pwnd.
Seems reading is not so fundamental for some.
Tsk. Tsk.
If everyone could and/or had the time to go back to source material, True Scholar, who would be left to benefit from your study and buy your books?
I do concede the point though. Many, many more people (including me) should do a lot more reading and less talking. It is fun for me to watch you and Deist go back and forth, it confirms a lot of things for me.
One word of caution though, if Deist challenges you to a "Truck Pulling Contest" to settle some dispute, don't do it.
Buda: I need a little help. After a meal out tonight, at a Mexican food joint, my wife stopped by an Asian owned liquor store. Thus allowing me to go inside and purchase a lottery ticket and one gallon of medical wine. ( My stomach doctor is Paul).
Now my question is....am I required to place a coin on top of the fat belly of the 'Buda' statue beside the cash register. This seems to be a custom.
I don't want to mess things up. I have one child graduating from High School and two graduating from college this May. I need to be observant of somebodys prosperity teachings.
Am I doomed to be poor anglo trash, or can I improve myself?
Post new comment